Date of issue: (2003-04-0109: 30:19)
Plaintiff: Shenzhen Seg Import and Export Corporation of Guangdong Province.
Legal Representative: Zhang Jintang, general manager of this company.
Authorized Agent: Fan and Xiong Bin, lawyers of Shenzhen Junlian Law Firm.
Defendant: Wuxi Branch of Agricultural Bank of China.
Representative: Zhu Binglun, president of this branch.
Authorized Agent: Cheng Mingshan, employee of Wuxi Branch of Agricultural Bank of China.
Authorized Agent: Song Zhengping, lawyer of Jin Hui Law Firm in Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province.
The plaintiff Shenzhen SEG Import and Export Company (hereinafter referred to as SEG Company) brought a lawsuit to the Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province for a bill acceptance dispute with the defendant Wuxi Branch of Agricultural Bank of China (hereinafter referred to as Suburb Agricultural Bank).
Seg Company, the plaintiff, claimed that when our company collected money from the defendant with a valid bank acceptance bill stamped by the defendant and promised to pay when it was due, the defendant refused to pay unreasonably. It is requested to order the defendant to pay 654.38+065.438+000 million yuan and 654.38+0239 yuan of deferred payment interest as of March 65.438+0998, 480 yuan, and bear the legal costs of this case.
The defendant Suburban Agricultural Bank did not reply.
The Intermediate People's Court of Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province found through trial that:
1996 65438+1On October 22nd, the plaintiff SEG Company opened a letter of credit according to the agreement signed with Shenzhen Lianjing Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Beitang Heng Chang Vehicle Trading Company (hereinafter referred to as Heng Chang Company). Therefore, in the same year, Heng Chang Company issued two bank acceptance bills with the amounts of 4.5 million yuan and 6.5 million yuan respectively, and the maturity dates were 1 1.65438+6.08 and 65438+2.08+6.08, respectively. The payee was SEG Company, and both of them were accepted by the defendant Suburb Agricultural Bank.
These two bank acceptance bills were lost by Heng Chang Company before being delivered to the plaintiff SEG Company. Heng Chang Company declared the draft invalid in Nanfang Daily 1996 on August 2, and applied to the suburban people's court of Wuxi for publicity on September 2 of the same year. On the same day, Wuxi Suburb People's Court informed the defendant that Suburb Agricultural Bank stopped paying. Upon the expiration of legal publicity, Heng Chang Company did not apply to the suburban people's court of Wuxi for no right to make a judgment. What Heng Chang Company later delivered to Seg Company, the plaintiff, was the first copy of the lost bank acceptance bill (which was used as the debit voucher when the accepting bank paid the bill) and the explanatory letter 1996 issued by the defendant Suburb Agricultural Bank on August 28th. In the first copy of bank acceptance bill, the drawer's signature column is stamped with the special seal of suburban agricultural bank bill, but it is signed by impermanent company. The contents of the explanatory letter of Suburban Agricultural Bank are as follows: As the bank acceptance bill was lost by the drawer, and the drawer has declared it invalid in the newspaper, it is agreed to affix the special seal for the bank bill on the bottom copy of the lost bill as an effective basis for the payee to collect money from the bank; After the bill expires, the payee must send someone to settle the face value with this coupon. According to the date recorded in the copy, SEG Company presented the first copy of the above-mentioned loss reporting bill to Suburb Agricultural Bank for payment after the expiration, which was rejected by Suburb Agricultural Bank, so it filed a lawsuit.
The above facts are confirmed by the following evidences: 1,199665438+1On October 22nd, the agency agreement was signed by SEG Company, Heng Chang Company and United Beijing Company; 2.1July 6, 996 The first copy of two bank acceptance bills issued by Changheng Company was stamped with the special seal of suburban agricultural bank bills; 3. Letter of explanation issued by Suburban Agricultural Bank on August 28th,1996; 4. Relevant evidence of Heng Chang Company's application for publicity; 5. Testimony of Heng Chang Company.
The Wuxi Intermediate People's Court held that Article 20 of the People's Republic of China (PRC) Negotiable Instruments Law stipulates: "Issuing a bill means that the drawer signs the bill and delivers it to the payee." Although the outsider Heng Chang Company was issued and accepted by the defendant Suburb Agricultural Bank, these two bank acceptance bills were lost by Heng Chang Company before being delivered to the plaintiff SEG Company, so Changheng Company did not complete the act of issuing tickets, and SEG Company did not actually hold the bank acceptance bills. At present, SEG Company only claims the bill right in the first copy of the bank acceptance bill given by Heng Chang Company. Although the copy has the words "draft", the amount, the name of the payer and the name of the payee, it does not have the signature of the drawer, Heng Chang Company, and it has not been accepted without the consent of Suburb Agricultural Bank, and an explanatory letter from Suburb Agricultural Bank restricting payment is attached. These contents do not conform to the provisions of Article 22 of the Negotiable Instruments Law on bills of exchange, so although the copy has the special seal for bills of exchange stamped by the Suburban Agricultural Bank, it cannot be used as a valid bill of exchange. SEG Company's request to exercise the rights of negotiable instruments with this copy does not conform to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Law and should be rejected. On this basis, Wuxi Intermediate People's Court passed a judgment of 1998 on July 24th, 20th:
Reject the plaintiff's claim from SEG Company. The case acceptance fee of 7 12 10 yuan shall be borne by the plaintiff seg company. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, SEG refused to accept it and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province. The reasons are as follows: judging from the contents of the explanatory letter of1August 28, 996, the appellee's acceptance of the letter is true and the legal procedures are complete, which conforms to the spirit stipulated in Article 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Law; The first copy of the bill of exchange sealed by the appellee shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as the second copy of the bill of exchange; The original judgment rejected the appellant's claim, and the reason could not be established. Request to revoke the original judgment and change the judgment according to law.
The Appellee Suburban Agricultural Bank argued that the original judgment found the facts clear and the applicable law was correct, so the appeal should be rejected and the original judgment upheld.
After trial, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that the facts identified in the original trial were clear and the evidence was true and sufficient. Bills are indispensable securities, and the production of bills must strictly abide by the law. The first copy of the bank acceptance bill obtained by the appellant SEG Company from the outsider Heng Chang Company does not conform to the provisions of the bill law and is not a valid bill. SEG Company cannot claim to exercise the bill rights on this basis. The original judgment rejecting SEG's claim was correct and should be maintained. Article 18 of the Negotiable Instruments Law stipulates: "If the holder loses the rights of the instrument due to the restriction of the rights of the instrument or the insufficient items recorded on the instrument, he still enjoys civil rights, and may request the drawer or acceptor to return the interests equivalent to the unpaid amount of the instrument." Heng Chang Company draws a draft on SEG Company, because SEG Company imports motorcycle engine assembly as its agent. Although SEG Company lost its bill right because the bill was invalid, its creditor's right to Heng Chang Company was not lost because of its agency behavior, and the original trial did not deny this civil right of SEG Company. Seg Company only advocated exercising the bill right to the Appellee Suburban Agricultural Bank when suing, and this case was filed as a bill dispute accordingly. The creditor's rights and debts between SEG Company and Heng Chang Company belong to causality, which belongs to the scope of civil law adjustment and has nothing to do with the bill relationship in this case. They should not be tried together. SEG can sue separately. Seg's appeal grounds are untenable and should be rejected. Accordingly, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province ruled on 1998+00+05 in accordance with Article 153, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC):
Reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment. The acceptance fee of the second instance case is 7 1, 2 10 yuan, which shall be borne by the appellant seg company.